Skip to main content

About your Search

English 31
Search Results 0 to 30 of about 31 (some duplicates have been removed)
would never know it by listening to the obama administration. we'll bring in fox all-stars in early. come on in. they're next. that timeline coming up. so, we all set? i've got two tickets to paradise! pack your bags, we'll leave tonight. uhh, it's next month, actually... eddie continues singing: to tickets to... paradiiiiiise! no four. remember? whoooa whooaa whooo! you know ronny, folks who save hundreds of dollars by switching to geico sure are happy. and how happy are they jimmy? happier than eddie money running a travel agency. get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. >>> four years ago i said i'd end the war in iraq and we did. i said we'd wind down war in afghanistan in a responsible way and we are. yes, have a new tower across the new york skyline. al-qaeda on the bath to defeat. bin laden is dead. >> i was pretty certain and continue to be pretty certain that there will be bumps on the road. >> bret: obama has had bumpy weeks according to many especially with the situation in libya. we just had a statement out today. from the director of
enforcement one of the reasons why the obama administration embraced it, but it's all about how these things are represented and what they're obligated to say when your pants down. do you believe in enforcing these laws been problematic are not? and when you say -- the whole idea of the. >> translator: is that these aren't the good kids. many -- i think they're right. it doesn't mean that they're a bad kid. community college or maybe you have got in trouble when you're a teenager. i think there is something very disingenuous about the debate we have around us, but of course that is because advocates of destruction debate in the certain white. this is rooted in any kind of believes that our prior to the way that we actually structure the conversation. i think that advocates have structured the conversation very advantageous sleep. >> a couple more questions in the month to cut off. i was wondering if you could and testimonials in terms of looking forward toward the democratic party strength. >> and also the gentleman over there. >> thank you. thanks to the forum today. the panelists. i can gi
campaign for comment, but they did not return our calls. the obama administration has proposed revising estate planning rules. and one option would be ending this tax benefit. >> it would affect estate planning as we know it. this is something that is commonly done day in and day out and has been for many years. >> that liberal group americans for tax fairness action fund is now calling on release his gift tax returns. that will show more details on how much the couple gifted to their children and grandchildren over the years and how much they paid in taxes, wolf. >> lisa, thanks very much. >>> and you're in "the situation room." happening now, the israeli prime minister draws a chilling red line for iran at the united nations. does it mean military action is imminent? i'll ask the israeli ambassador to the united states this hour. also, syrian rebels scoring new victories on the battlefield thanks possibly to help from expats living right here in the united states. and a new twist in one of america's greatest unsolved mysteries. will drilling into a driveway finally uncover the remains
't heard the obama administration do that yet. is that the issue right now? >> well, as the prime minister said to the general assembly today, wolf, the drawing of the red line is designed to give diplomacy and sanctions more time to work. we believe by drawing that red line you won't be increasing the chances of military engagement, you'll be significantly lessening the chances of a military engagement because the iranians have been presented with red lines in e past in trai of hormuz and they've backed down. we know they can see the color red. we're engaged in a conversation with the obama administratio about setting limits to iran's enrichment process because that's the part of the iranian nuclear program that we can actually see and mor. and that the part that's in facilities that areservle and are still lnerable. and so the obama administration's engaging with in a dialogue t it. you mention tt the secretary of state will be meeting with the prime minister this evening. thidengt willalking netanyahu tomorrow. th p of an ongoing dialogue that we've had to reach an understanding about
that will say in the first two years of the obama administration, there was democratic control of both houses of congress, and the president had a hard time getting his legislative agenda passed. caller: it's because the filibuster in the senate, i mean, when you need 60 votes and the democrats only had 59, so he had a hard time getting even healthcare through. host: all right, paul, we're going to move to andy on our line from independents, calling from florida. caller: sorry, i'm calling from south carolina. host: ok, andy is calling from south carolina where. in south carolina, andy? caller: columbia. host: ok. are you in favor of divided government or one party? caller: well, i'm not so sure i'm in favor of either one, unless -- except if divided government is going to give us what it's given us now and nothing gets done, nothing gets passed. we got a credit rating downgraded because one party says my way or the highway. that's not good governance. it's not -- there's no such thing as my way or the highway. we all have to compromise, you know, in a marriage, the husband doesn't get everyt
and president obama both expected to speak there shortly. plus the obama administration insists sanctions are working to keep iran's nuclear ambitions in check. others have serious doubts. what happens if the doubters are right? in the race for the white house do the polls paint a fair picture? is there media bias? our "news watch" panel weighs in. all new, all live is "happening now." jon: welcoming jenna lee back from italy. i have hope you had a good --. jenna: our friends maya and pat had an amazing wedding. congratulations to them. back to work today. jon: big day on the campaign trail for the candidates today. we have every angle covered. touchdown tore football fans. i'm jon scott. jenna: i'm jenna lee. first the headline today is that the strike is over. the nfl and the referees union reaching what some are describing as a tentative labor agreement. we'll see if it sticks. this after one of the most tumultuous starts to any starting professional sports season we've seen in recent history. the new agreement puts the pro refs back in their uniforms in time for tonight's game. after
revolt against the obama administration's new calorie limits. ♪ tonight we are hungry ♪ . >> gretchen: the usda says it has a solution. putting the blame on parents for not giving them snacks. many people outraged over new cafeteria regulations that only allow high schoolers 850 calories. those are your headlines. >> brian: always goes back to the parents. >> steve: of course, blame the parents. teachers, no problem. moving on, iran's nuclear program will be front and center when benjamin netanyahu takes the floor at the united nations general assembly. david lee miller is out in the rain on the east side of manhattan and joins us live. good morning to you. >> good morning to you. the good news is, the rain has stopped. the controversy here at the united nations continues. the reviews of sorts continue to pour in regarding ahmadinejab's speech yesterday before the general assembly. some have described it as a kinder, gentler ahmadinejab, while others have said that he should not be compared to gandhi. in many ways he's stuck on the same familiar themes that he has for years, specifica
is that the obama administration has declined to defend the defense of marriage act. and governor romney may well decide that he would defend the constitutionality of that statute could but it does not seem that that kind of social conservative question has a lot of salience in something like a presidential debate. so other than health care, i do not see much happening. >> i think it will not happen. and here's why. no major national political figure has attacked affirmative action publicly since 1996 or before. it isind of remarkable. the republicans who, during the 1990's for a while, we're seeing some sort of political profit attacking affirmative action given the polls don't do it anymore. and the democrats, john kerry coming nearly 1990's, joe lieberman in the early 1990's and others, said maybe this time to stop these racial preferences. the democratic leadership council was inching down that road. but that has all gone. i have spoken with republican politicians. why is that? and the answer was that we get so demonized if we ever raise our voices against affirmative action. it is just not w
creation. 4 million jobs created after the first year of the obama administration, legitimate issue to say he is making progress. on foreign policy, i think it should be an issue of what we just discussed. but i think it will be laid in the context of the president not only having stopped the war in iraq, gone and violated pakistani air space, which wasn't done before, and getting al qaeda in pakistan, that's bin laden and putting it in the context of 12 embassies attacked in the 8 years of the bush administration and losing a u.s. diplomat in pakistan and our president recognizing that we have to shift our focus, not just in the global war on terror, but to dhiena. i think this may take a bit of luster off, but overall, i think it's quite a good step that he has taken for america, securing our peace and prosperity. >> eric: that's the final word. >> thank you for having me. >> eric: thank you both. >> jamie: major development in the showdown over iran's nuclear program. the economic sanctions are stinging hard with the israeli finance minister, saying iran's economy is paying a heavy pric
debate at the heart of the presidential race, which is, going forward, this is the obama administration's tagline. they would say let's let the agency do its job. the republican position is is ill-advised and we would like kill it or change it. host: how widespread is predatory lending these days and what is the agency currently doing about? about guest: predatory lending is deceptive lending practices o. it is extremely widespread. if you pick up a credit card application, you will see dozens of pages of fine print that is hard for anybody to really get through and most people don't even try. there are teaser rates, for instance, a lower rate on credit cards in a short amount of time that would triple or quadruple and they don't tell you that the upfront. it's in the fine print. it's very widespread. almost the essence of the new agency is to and changed the terms of debate so that predatory lending is very hard for companies to get away with, so that they have to make their money helping people save and invest and advance themselves financially rather than the way the system now is. s
court is now back in session for the first time since it ruled on the obama administration's landmark health care law last june. so how might mitt romney change the high court if he becomes president of the united states? he's already giving all of us some major clues. let's bring in cnn's crime and justice correspondent joe johns who's taking a closer look. what are you seeing? >> the supreme court doesn't get talked about that much on the campaign trail. but choosing a justice is one of the most important things a president does. it's how on administration puts its mark on some of the nation east toughest, most divisive issues. and we have a look at how mitt romney might handle it if he's president. whenever mitt romney fielded questions during the primaries about his picks for the supreme court, he was armed with a stock republican answer. >> what i would look to do would be to appoint people to the supreme court that will follow strictly the constitution as opposed to to legislating from the bench. >> reporter: but he wouldn't choose a favorite. >> would you pick one, please? >> y
's running, what year they're running, you become the tool of a political despot. the obama administration will feed you a narrative, which works on these people, and have you vote. >> bill: the media is a sellout media, and exactly what they did in 2007 and '08 they are doing here. could you imagine "60 minutes, they ought to be embarrassed. mr. president, you promised to cut the deficit in half in your first term, $6 trillion in debt, you said bush was unpatriotic and irresponsible for four years. explain. they don't ask fundamentals. fewer americans are working in spite of your caveats, mr. president. explain. explain all of the -- never does he get asked simple questions. >> well, the media complicit here and the collusion, which is what it is, is obvious. when univision does -- credit to them -- for asking tougher questions, never getting an answer, but asking tougher questions of this president, that's amazing. i mean, they've abrogated their responsibilities as media and the american people, what we hear in this howard stern audio, is the result -- it's partially the result of media
of the obama administration. if i understand it correctly, i was busy dodging other kinds of projectiles in iraq at the time. if i understand this correctly, this is a deeply idealistic effort to try to say, we are not only going to give money, not only have an impact with a fairly large, civilian assistance program to balance our ongoing military commitment to pakistan, but we are also going to set up a structure or relationship to what is generally called the strategic partnership to try to mbreak out of that pattern. after 2008 and 2009, those of you who knew richard knew the hurricane hit pakistan and there was a set of very ambitious goals that were put in to try to build a long-term commitment to pakistan. i use long-term advisedly. america is focused on the counter-terrorism after post- 9/11. by the almost a pistol logical elements -- epistemological element, this was to balance that short-term set of needs. american safety, the safety of the pack as any people. to balance that with a commitment of long-term stability, and a vision with pakistan of a long-term stability in pakista
. as yet what are the noteworthy aspects of the last four years in the obama administration how much policy has been driven from the white house? some presidents give lip service to the cabinet government and in power and their secretaries. obama seems to have gone pretty far the other way. so i'm curious to get a second obama term what we see the continuation of the pattern in which romney, how do you think that he would write things in terms of the relationship in the department and the white house? >> i think we have strayed some distance from the government in the sense that the white house staff has been built up with the lawyers of folks that had to cushion the president from the departments and agencies. sallai compare and contrast just be kind of low-level staffer under ronald reagan on the advanced staff and seeing the universe of high-profile kavanagh members who interjected at least from what i could see more directly with the president and now we have lawyers that kind of cushion the president and the deputy chief of staff of policy or whatever the case might be. and i think tha
obama recently declined to defend and the administration is enforcing it. the house has created the bipartisan legal advisory group. and the fans these laws since the administration abdicated its role in defending them and paul clement in that task. there are several cases all of which have petitions to decide. the first one and probably the front runner is a combination case, personnel management and the department of health and human services. it came out of massachusetts. two cases have been combined and they argue the equal protection clause violates section 3 of the defense of marriage act because the defense of marriage act violates the equal protection clause because there is no rational basis for this or it doesn't pass strict scrutiny. the idea of which level of scrutiny must pass has been questioned so we're happy to argue both. elena kagan was involved at the district court level during confirmation hearings that came out and questions her office had been involved in doing internal discussions of strategies in the case so she would be recused from that case and that p
, the administration sent susan rice out to tell everybody it was because of some youtube clip. so today's speech was not a great moment in the obama presidency. that's for sure. >> colin, what do you take -- think about this claim that al qaeda is weakened? certainly in some regards it is, at least when it comes to afghanistan. but in africa, extremist groups linked to al qaeda in some way, shape or form, they are certainly on the rise. so what do you think about the truth of the statement overall? >> it's absolutely true. it's objectively true. besides the fact that osama bin laden is now dead, more senior leaders in al qaeda have been removed from the battlefield in the last three-and-a-half years than in any comparable period since 9/11. and it's not just in afghanistan and pakistan. it's also in yemen, it's in somalia. and it's -- and it's elsewhere. so i think you're right that there are still affiliates of al qaeda that are active, and we still relentlessly pursue them. but there is no question that al qaeda is a weaker organization today than when president obama took office, and i think
on both sides. some are knocking him because they say that he deported more folks -- this administration, they say, has deported more focused than any other. >> well, the bush administration. >> we know that, since 2004,he number of border patrol agents have doubled in this country and that, president obama, he called for an increase to avert 21,000 border patrol agents. since 2007, revenue going toward border security has increased 55%. and we also see, for instance, in terms of mexicans coming to the united states, that is at net zero right now. to suggest that somehow our borders are not secure, if what that means is are they as secure as we would want them to be? we could always make them more secure, right? we could theoretically have zero people ever coming across the border. but the borders are more secure than they ever have been before. >> i guess we could ask if the borders are more secure than they were four years ago. [laughter] issue then there's this of the tone of the debate. i think the fear mongering in the debate. for instance, this issue of folks who e otm, other than
and democratic administrations. i think it's unfair to level such a criticism in president obama. he has been a very strong leader on protecting this country as president bush was. and i think both presidents, since 9/11, have put security of the american people, our homeland security as job number one as they should. and they have both been strong in the area. it's unfair to assert that president obama has let down the guard. libya was a triple tragic event. he died two weeks ago today along with the three of the colleagues. the responsibility for guarding our embassy overseas is not the -- we don't have american military protecting our embassy. it's the host country that provides the perimeter security around the diplomatic security. we provide the security for the foreign embassies in new york city. who let us down in cairo? it was the egyptian government. that's why the crowd went over the wall and put down the american flag and putted it up. it was the libyan security forces who let us down in benghazi when ambassador stevens was killed. i don't think it's appropriate to somehow blame th
: mr. burns, why don't you begin by explaining how you think he administration handled libya? guest: let me just say, i've worked for democratic and republican administrations, and i think i.t. is unfair to level such a criticism of the -- president obama. he has been a strong leader in protecting this country, as president bush was, and both presidents since 9/11 have put the security of the american people and homeland security as job number one, as they should. they are both strong in that area, and it is unfair to suggest that president obama has let down our guard. the events in libya were tragic. the responsibility for guarding our embassies and consulates overseas -- we don't have american military protecting our embassies. it is the host country that provides perimeter security rapping out diplomatic establishments. we provide security for foreign embassies in washington, d.c. and consulates in new york city to it could lead us down? in cairo, it was the egyptian government that did not have enough security around pmc, and that is why the crowds went over the walls and a tri
deported more folks -- this administration, they say, has deported more focused than any other. >> well, the bush administration. >> we know that, since 2004, the number of border patrol agents have doubled in this country and that, president obama, he called for an increase to avert 21,000 border patrol agents. since 2007, revenue going toward border security has increased 55%. and we also see, for instance, in terms of mexicans coming to the united states, that is at net zero right now. to suggest that somehow our borders are not secure, if what that means is are they as secure as we would want them to be? we could always make them more secure, right? we could theoretically have zero people ever coming across the border. but the borders are more secure than they ever have been before. >> i guess we could ask if the borders are more secure than they were four years ago. [laughter] issue then there's this of the tone of the debate. i think the fear mongering in the debate. for instance, this issue of folks who are otm, other than mexicans, and know that you and lieutenant governor dewhu
Search Results 0 to 30 of about 31 (some duplicates have been removed)